Does Kustavi - a little municipality in south-western Finland - reprepresent common understanding of transparency in connection with the ERDF funding: guard the secrecy as in the banking business
- Says the coordinator of the project: "This confidentiality is the cornerstone on which we could build this exraordinary cooperation amongst all those involved."
Also, according to the Decision of the County Administrative Court the information concerning the enterprises' shares and contributions contained in the project's budget is confidential.
With reference to the above stated:
On what grounds the aids received or the contributions made to a public project by an enterprise are confidential?
The answer must be: the enterprises are very happy when they get aid, and nobody (not even the taxman) knows anything about it.
Violations of this right in Kustavi:
Spring 1998: the municipality official, Ms Maritta Jalonen told in the phone to the Parliamentary Ombudsman that the person who had asked for documents concerning the Kustavi municipality project promoting tourism had received "all material concerning the project". Also Director of the Regional Council of South-West Finland Pekka Ojanen has according to the Ombudsman announced that "the party concerned has been shown all documents concerning the project". The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that these before mentioned oral statements were an adequate answer to the complaint left to Ombudsman about the denied documents.
3.7.1998 official Jalonen answers in writing to a detailed request for documents concerning the same project; the answer is deficient, giving no comment on many essential documents.
12.4.1999 the Municipal Executive Board decide unanimously not to grant access to the documents.
27.8.1999 the Municipal Manager refuses in the same matter access to receipts, although, according to a prejudgement of the Supreme Administrative Court, receipts are public documents. The County Administrative Court referred on the 14th of September the complaint back to the Municipal Board, to be dealt with as a demand for rectification. According to the Finnish Local Government Act, Section 89, a demand for rectification shall be dealt with immediately. The unanimous decision to grant access to the project's receipts wasn't granted until the 15th of November.
16.9.1999 Decision of the County Administrative Court, N:o 99/0416/2:
The Municipal Board Decision 12.4.1999 not to grant access to the requested documents was unlawful.
The Municipal Board decision not to grant access to the budget of the project aiming at promoting the tourism at Kustavi area containing information about the local enterprises' contributions to the project, not to grant access to the consultation contract concerning the project and not to grant access to the accounts of the project, excluding information of private individual's salaries, is unlawful. The consultation contract and the accounts, salaries paid to individuals excluded, are public official documents that everyone shall have the right of access to. The County Administrative Court referred the matter back to the Municipal Board for purposes of re-examination.
This Municipal Board finally decide on the 25th of October unanimously to grant access to the aforementioned documents, but they were not delivered to the claimant until the 30th of November, and even then, some essential documents were withheld. The local police is looking into the matter. Progress will be reported on this page regularly.
15.10.1999 a renewed inquiry to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Among questions asked are: What is to be done, since the ombudsman has stated that all the documents have been delivered and this is evidentially not the case and it seems likely that a civil case is needed to get the documents in question? Violations of openness should be dealt with rapidly, but no answer has been given.
Therefore I hereby present publicly two questions to the Ombudsman:
1. As far as public access to documents is considered a fundamental right, did you, Ombudsman, violate this right when you on the 23rd of June 1998 answered to the complaint of the interested party that according to the authrorities refusing access to the said documents the interested party in question had 1. been given all the documents 2. had had access to all the material?
(The Ombudsman based his view on phone calls to the officials withhelding the documents.)
2. Is the aforementioned violation of citizen's basic right by definition that kind of misconduct in official duties that it according to the western legal usage could lead to the dismissal of the official in question?
After Helsingin Sanomat 26.10:
MattiWuori, member of the European Parliament, demands the media to be aggressive; that's the only way to develop a more open administration. According to Wuori, information leaks oil democracy and prevent closed and secretive decision-making. Wuori says people and media in general are very shy to use the legislation we have ie. to demand to have access to documents.
Millennium in English was opened on the 1st
of december ; after that some
Comments and corrections: please mail to the publisher of this page, J. Laine.